Show me what you can do with LF! (That you can't with smaller formats.)

[Will Frostmill]

Hi everybody,
Can you show me some of your work that you couldn't have done with a smaller format camera? I really like LF stuff - the photographic tradition, the pretty cameras, the technical challenges, but there are times when I question if it is the right thing for me.

I've read lots of technical threads about what can be done with LF - and what smaller formats can't, but I am inspired by photographs, and I'd like to see what you have done.

Moderators, I hope that this is the right sub-forum for this sort of thing? Please move it if I blew it.

Will

[Kirk Gittings]

The real problem is..........much of what is special in LF is in the fine detail, smooth tonal transitions, etc.--aspects THAT YOU CAN"T SEE IN A 600 PIXEL JPEG ON A SCREEN! I suggest you head to New York and look at some real prints in galleries that show LF work.

[IanG]

The real problem is..........much of what is special in LF is in the fine detail, smooth tonal transitions, etc.--aspects THAT YOU CAN"T SEE IN A 600 PIXEL JPEG ON A SCREEN! I suggest you head to New York and look at some real prints in galleries that show LF work.

Have to agree 110%

Ian

[Scott Walker]

If you spend some time studying the images on these forums it will probably come to you. Maybe start with depth of focus, go through a few hundred images and see if you can pick out the ones where a bit of tilt was used, some are obvious. Or go to the Architecture section and look for images where you are obviously looking either up or down at the subject and the walls are not converging.

And what Kirk said.....go see the real thing

[Gem Singer]

The easiest thing we can demonstrate on a computer screen is the advantage of using a camera that allows for perspective control and extending of the DOF.

Buildings don't look like they are falling backwards. Everything is sharp from near to far, etc.

I realize that there are a few small format cameras and/or lenses that allow a limited amount of tilt, rise, and shift. However, they usually are quite expensive and their effects are minimal.

[Heroique]

I’ve been in a few situations when front shift (or back shift) allowed me to compose my scene w/o moving the tripod from its only possible position – like when rocks, trees and cliffs block any other placement. What’s occasionally convenient to me about front shift is the change you can make to viewpoint perspective w/ a stationary tripod (as with front rise & front fall).

[E. von Hoegh]

I’ve been in a few situations when front shift (or back shift) allowed me to compose my scene w/o moving the tripod from its only possible position – like when rocks, trees and cliffs block any other placement. What’s occasionally convenient to me about front shift is the change you can make to viewpoint perspective w/ a stationary tripod (as with front rise & front fall).

But I can do that with my 35mm.

[Shen45]

The real problem is..........much of what is special in LF is in the fine detail, smooth tonal transitions, etc.--aspects THAT YOU CAN"T SEE IN A 600 PIXEL JPEG ON A SCREEN! I suggest you head to New York and look at some real prints in galleries that show LF work.

[Will Frostmill]

Thanks Kirk, that is pretty much what I had thought - nothing beats seeing something in person.

Gem Singer, good point re: perspective correction. Interestingly enough, sometimes perspective correction really bothers people. My spouse and I were looking at some photostiched works at the museum, and she asked me what was it about the image that creeped her out. After some debate, we figured out that the uncanny amount of resolution (more than you'd be able to see under normal circumstances due to atmospheric effects, etc.) combined with the unnaturally regular buldings (a row, each looking as though you were right in front of them) put the whole viewing experience far into the realm of the impossible.

Heroique, thanks for the reminder about using shift to take pictures that are impossible to reach. That's something people have done since the beginning to get shots of oncoming locomotives, isn't it?

[Kirk Gittings]

However, they usually are quite expensive and their effects are minimal.

Hmmmm, really? Those are what i use to make a living and they are entirely adequate for shooting architecture.